Amazon

NOTICE

Thursday, 31 October 2013

I’ve watched the BBC documentary When Tommy Met Mo: Leaving the EDL (video above), which was clearly intended to portray Islam as a peaceful, nice and tolerant “religion”, hijacked by some, in short the usual spin, but this time with the prestigious and authoritative backing of a former English Defence League leader.

That Tommy Robinson lent himself to this circus shows what a confused man he is. He has a split personality, at least vis–à–vis Islam. There are times when he appears to understand, at least partly, what Islam is; and then there are times when he has strong doubts about what he has previously thought, and starts talking nonsense.

The fact that he may believe all the things said by Mohammed Ansar and Maajid Nawaz of the Quilliam Foundation is another indication of how unclear his ideas about Islam are. He wasn’t even able to quote from the Quran in an intelligible way, which would have been the easiest thing in the world and the first thing to do, when the others disputed his words. Of course we don’t know if the BBC cut out the parts when Robinson might have appeared not so gullible: we have to go by what the documentary shows, but I suspect that it must have had Tommy’s final approval.

And about reforming Islam and throwing away parts – the nasty, “violent” he called them, parts - of the Quran: you cannot reform or pick and choose between the words of God, and for Muslims the Quran IS the direct word of God, verbatim dictated to Muhammad, unlike the Bible, that was written by men. So, unlike Christianity, Islam is by its very nature fundamentalist and cannot be reformed in principle.

The often-repeated leitmotif of the documentary was “British Islam”, a contradiction in terms no less than “squared circle”.

I’m writing all this not because Tommy or what he does have a supreme importance for me, although he's been a brave bloke and although his actions still have major effects. For example, a friend of mine, who is highly representative of public opinion and who watched the documentary too, now likes Tommy Robinson very much, thinks he’s a nice person, and more than ever hopes that Islam will be reformed and everything in the UK will be hunky-dory with Muslims. Which is the impression the BBC wanted to create: Islam is good and, even in case you doubt it - namely, even if you have eyes and ears –, it can always be reformed. What more do you want?

No, I’m writing this because there is a lesson for us on all this.

The lesson is that we cannot act without having thought first, which is what Tommy omitted to do. He has made such a mess of things: being against Islam – or maybe not -, then being an apologist for Islam, like the historian Tom Holland appearing on the programme, whom I never quite found convincing – and what he said on this broadcast confirms me in my opinion.

And Tommy made such a mess of things because he did not start with the right foot, which would have been having a good, solid and deep understanding of what he was fighting against, beginning with a clarification of the spurious distinction between Islam and Islamism, that he never quite realised to be fabricated. But, in a war, comprehending who your enemy is is necessary but not sufficient. You also have to understand who you are and more importantly what you fight for.

The existence of an LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual) division in the EDL shows very clearly that he did not grasp what he was fighting for. The Left, even before Islam, is our enemy. The Left is the enabler of Islam in the West. And you don’t fight the Left by joining it. The normalisation of homosexuality - and even more transexuality - is one of the many manifestations of the cultural war victories that Marxism has achieved over the Western, typically Christian, values and principles we stand for.

That’s why I keep stressing the importance of having clear ideas and ideology before anything else.

It doesn’t have to end in a civil war, as somebody gloomily forecasts, just because Tommy Robinson – and probably the EDL – have failed. We can learn from their mistakes and solve this problem politically, as we in the Liberty GB party are trying to do.

Tuesday, 29 October 2013

Leyla Hussein, a Somali woman living in London who was subjected to female genital mutilation when she was seven in Somalia, has tried a macabre experiment to test how far the political correctness of the public in the British capital would go.

She asked shoppers to sign a petition supporting FGM, telling them she wanted to protect her “culture, traditions and rights”.

Ms Hussein astonishingly found that only one person out of 20 refused to sign her petition.

“I kept using the word ‘it’s just mutilation’. They were like ‘yes, you are right’. How can anyone think that’s okay?”

...[P]ublic health minister Jane Ellison warned that vulnerable girls were being failed because people do not want to be seen as “culturally insensitive”.

This reminds me a bit of that notorious psychology experiment in which subjects were asked to administer electric shocks to other persons by someone whom they believed to be a scientist. Under test was the willingness of ordinary people, not particularly sadistic or cruel, to go along with the infliction of even severe pain on innocent human beings if the command was imparted by a figure in authority in a white coat if they thought that this could benefit science.

The pain was imaginary, no electric shocks were really given, but the subjects did not know that. Mostly, they obeyed the order to administer progressively stronger electric shocks, and continued even when the presumed victims, whom they could not directly see, were screaming.

Two are the great gods of our world, to whom everything must be sacrificed, as in the ancient pagan rites of human and animal sacrifices: science and political correctness.

Saturday, 26 October 2013

It’s so odd that many British politicians, especially those of the Euro-skeptic variety, always go on saying that the UK public has not been consulted regarding Britain’s position in the European Union now that the process of European integration is political and not just economical as it was when the UK held a referendum on the subject in 1975.

It’s odd because no politician ever, at least in the mainstream political parties, has ever uttered a word about another dramatically important issue affecting British people’s lives much more profoundly than the country’s European membership.

I refer to the mass immigration, legal and illegal, of so-called economic migrants as well as political refugees and asylum seekers, genuine and bogus alike, that has inundated the country with a number of people from all over the world so large and so unmanageable that nobody knows exactly what it is.

I said it’s odd but in fact it isn’t. There’s a crucial reason why the decisions about mass immigration have been taken by the various successive governments from the post-war period to now without bothering to find out what the people actually wanted.

Because politicians know extremely well that the vast majority of the British population do not want this large-scale demographic experiment performed on their own skin, as all opinion polls clearly show.

Wednesday, 23 October 2013

It never ceases to amaze me how on one hand cultural products considered offensive to Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism are treated as “hate crimes”. If, God forbid, a book or a film offends Islam (and that is easy enough, because Muslims do get easily offended), on top of being labelled a hate crime it also puts author, director or producers’ lives at risk with a fatwa (in fact, a film about Islam would be even too dangerous to make).

But on the other hand to offend Christianity is “art”, as in the case of Chris Ofili's painting of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung and surrounded by cut-outs from pornographic magazines.

The existence of the much over-used words "anti-semitic" and "islamophobic" obviously shows that certain groups are protected by political correctness, but one group is not.

There have been many excuses put forward for Ofili's work, the most common of which have been:

1)You can attack your own religion.

No, because it is not only your religion, it is not exclusive to yourself. Many other coreligionists may be offended by something that you don't find offensive, and you have to think of its effect on them.

2) Dung is God's creation.

What about pornographic cuts? Last time I checked it was not God that created Playboy or hard core movies.
The question is one of context. It is not the human body or its products at issue here, but the association of a Christian symbol with something which has a repulsive connotation.

3) It makes people think.

Wow! So, without a product of defecation or urination slapped in front of them, people wouldn't be able to think. Whatever the persons who put forward this excuse have faith in they can't have a lot of faith in people's reflective powers.
It's possible to make people think without the "shock, horror!" techniques that someone seems to believe necessary. Incidentally, aren't they the same techniques used by popular tabloids and mags ('gutter press' they are called in England)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

People who defend Ofili's work overlook the all-important question of communication.

We use certain words (and discard others) because we know that they convey a certain meaning to other people, that is the recipients of our communication, not to ourselves.

Communication is all about thinking of who is going to receive it and what they will make of it.

Now, art is one of the most important forms of communication.

Whether a painting is a real work of art or is art only in its producer's wishes (and wildest dreams), it doesn't alter the fact that it is a means of communication.

Whatever Ofili thinks, it should have been obvious even to a not exactly gigantic intellect like him that the majority of people who would see the painting considered elephant dung as a symbol of something totally different from Ofili's supposed and alleged original intentions.

By associating it with a symbol of Christianity, Ofili conveyed a clear message.

The message is: profanity.

Let me explain what it means, from the original Greek: it is to pollute and displace one icon with another. Now, trying to interject offensive symbology into a religion's iconography certainly is profanity. Is it profane for the culture involved, Christianity, or not? Since so many Christians protested vehemently about it, one could with certainty infer that they found it profane.

"There is contempt of the past, a senseless denial of any possibility of enduring meaning, in desecration art. Desecration art functions like the parasite; it destroys the heritage from which it draws its meaning. Ofili's piece illustrates this. The icon gives the piece meaning, yet the icon is what the piece seeks to destroy. Destroy the meaning of the icon and the meaning of the piece is destroyed with it like the parasite that dies with its host. The artist is vandal and the museum the gate to this cultural barbarism."

"Or perhaps the artist, not unlike a dirtyminded little adolescent, sought the most offensive image his little brain could contrive in order to aquire a name and hopefully wealth. Because that is what art today is really about, money. It is no different from pop culture, which is what Warhol went to all the trouble to point out."

And the central issue at stake here is that no works of "art" have done the same thorough job at desecrating fundamental symbols of religions other than Christianity.

Conversely, every time a Christian symbol is depicted in "art" now is surrounded by or associated with excreta, urine, vaginas, condoms, breasts, panties, coat hangers for abortion, phallic pipes, simulated sex acts and the like.

Below is another post, from my discontinued blog of a few years ago, which can still provide food for thought today. The article, dated 19 September 2006, was prompted by and referring to a then recent event, that of Pope Benedict XVI quoting from the erudite 14th-century Christian Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, and the violent reactions from Muslims it elicited. Since it's not in the article, this is what the Holy Father said in the lecture he gave at the University of Regensburg in Germany:

In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that [the Quran] surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war.

After the South American Pope Francis' election, Benedict XVI sounds refreshingly well acquainted with Islam and its development from weak - and therefore forced to be "peaceful" - to strong and aggressive.

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”[3] The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To state that Muslims, by reacting with anger, attempts at intimidation and with both threats and acts of violence to the claim that Islam is violent (regardless of the question whether this was what the Holy Father simply quoted), are saying with their own actions what has been claimed just with words is even too obvious.

What I think is showing here is a semantic gulf between the West and Islam.

I cannot believe that all Muslims are so stupid (it’s possible, but statistically improbable) not to realize that for someone to say: “I’m not violent, and I’ll kill you if you say that” is a situation worth of a comedy sketch.

What I think is that when we Westerners say “violence” or “violent” we mean something entirely different from what Muslims intend by the same words.

The Western definition of those words, for reasons of culture, history and mentality, is not the Muslim definition of them. They have a negative connotation in both worlds, but they are applied to different behaviours and actions.

For example, for us in the West the act of killing someone who has offended Mohammed, Islam, the Koran or anything sacred to Muslims is an act of unqualified violence. For Muslims, it simply is not: it is indeed an act even laudable and in some circumstances legal and required (e.g. the fatwa proclaiming the death sentence for Salman Rushdie).

I personally am convinced that the Pope believes in the words he quoted from the erudite 14th-century Christian Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus. He did not retract them. The reason for his expressing regret at the way they had been taken was mainly, in my opinion, to protect the unfortunate people who are already persecuted on a routine basis and prevent them from being persecuted even more: I refer, of course, to the Christians living in Muslim countries, particularly in the Middle East, where the burning of churches is a normal occurrence, only made worse by the jihad against the Holy Father.

And, to mix the sacred with the profane, does anybody remember what the Muslim Zidane did when he headbutted the Italian Materazzi in the football World Cup final last July? He blamed Materazzi for having provoked him, stubbornly refused to apologize to him and, in the politically correct environment of the FIFA and the liberal media, he almost got away with that lame excuse. It looks like blaming others for one’s own violence and irrational behaviour is definitely a Muslim thing.

Of course, considering that this is a multi-million-animal slaughter - on Eid, 7.5 million animals are sacrificed every year in Pakistan alone -, by the theory of probability some incident or another is bound to happen.

A few reports are coming from Italy, where Muslims are - alas, oops I meant Insha'Allah - rapidly multiplying. Il Giornale di Vicenza, a local paper in the region of Venice, says about the halal slaughter on Eid:

The ceremony takes place in front of the family, with the children in the front row: it is not considered a macabre spectacle because Muslims witness it from an early age and it's part of the religious tradition.

But a grandad disagreed. An Italian man, Salvatore Cipolletta, whose daughter Cristina married young Yemeni Haidar Rohay Ahmed Al-Tawil, shot dead his son-in-law after seeing him butcher a lamb on the family's dinner table under his own grandchildren's eyes.

While in Italy the number of marriages, and in particular church weddings, has reached historic lows, mixed marriages between Italians and immigrants have steadily increased.

The climate of violence that surrounds Islam in so many of its doctrines, characteristics and rituals can only generate more, interminable violence in an endless cycle.

During a festive family celebration having, rather than a visit to a theme park or a trip to the cinema, an animal slaughter show without the benefit of pre-stunning as entertainment and education for the children is likely to produce adults who will not abhor blood and savagery but will find them normal: which may be what the original intention behind these rituals actually was.

In Italy the number of marriages, especially in church, has reached historic lows, but on the other hand mixed marriages between Italians and immigrants are on the rise and have been for several years.

What's the result? Not always family bliss. As could have been easily predicted, cultural and religious differences are more important than multiculturalism leads people to believe.

And within purely immigrant Muslim families the problems are the same.

The wife who kills her husband's mistress because she does not comply with the dictates of the Koran; the husband who kills an acquaintance who offended his wife by calling her a prostitute, again in defiance of Muslim laws. The family dramas triggered by religious causes are unfortunately not uncommon in the Vicenza area.

Then there are the nephew tortured because he doesn't go to the mosque, the wife battered for not wearing the burqa, the little Indian girl beaten up due to her choice of an Italian boyfriend.

If the first hypotheses about the Via Todeschini crime were confirmed, namely a quarrel resulted in tragedy over the differences on the sacrifice of a lamb, the death of the young Yemeni would be part of the long trail of blood shed in the Province of Vicenza for reasons related to beliefs, rituals and conflicts of a religious nature.

If the most recent case is that of a young 14-year-old African from Arzignano, whose uncle cut off his ear lobe as punishment because the boy did not want to regularly frequent the mosque, the most resounding, followed by the whole of Italy, dates back to 4 November 1999.

That evening, in the butcher shop near the Multicenter, in the city, the Moroccan citizen Saida Tawil, 38, killed with 32 stab wounds her compatriot Mina Etamraoui. The victim, who was the lover of her husband, did not want to accept the Koranic law of concubinage. An honour killing paid with "only" 6 years in prison because she was granted, thanks to her lawyers Paolo Mele senior and Caterina Evangelisti, the extenuating circumstance of provocation.

The two women were in love with a man, the murderer's husband, who loved both and could not decide. The victim had converted to Western customs; and although the killer had recognized the concubine, as the Koran rules, she did not accept that she didn't respect the laws of the Koran by wearing Western clothes and drinking beer.

For these religious reasons she murdered her and injured her own husband.

The previous year, in Bassano, another Moroccan killed the man who had dared call his wife a prostitute; in this case as well, the murderer acted for religious motives, because that type of insult is considered very serious by the Koran.

A case that received much coverage is that of an Asian immigrant living in the Chiampo valley, who wanted to prevent his daughter from going out with an Italian boy. For him this was unacceptable, so he locked her in the house and beat her up. Similar is the case of the Arzignano husband who mistreated his wife for not wearing a burqa as his religion dictates, and who was reported and risked being arrested.

Another phenomenon, less serious, is represented by the customs of the Sikh religious community, which is very strong in all Alto Vicentino and normally meets in Castelgomberto. [The problems here are] The turban, which prevents them from wearing helmets when riding a motorbike, and even more the knife they carry around as an object of worship (like the cross for a Christian) and is frequently seized by the police, with criminal charges, as a posssible weapon.

Wednesday, 16 October 2013

The UK is facing its greatest risk of blackouts since 2007/08 in the coming winter. The National Grid, responsible for balancing the country's supply and demand of energy, last week has given this warning because Britain’s reserves of electricity have halved in 12 months.

The UK and the USA are in the same boat here. Both countries have governments that have – or pretend to have - fallen for the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory hook, line, and sinker.

The Obama Administration’s regulations to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, that The New York Times has described as “an aggressive move by Mr. Obama to bypass Congress on climate change with executive actions he promised in his inaugural address this year”, have been denounced as part of the president’s “war on coal.”

The one thing the president really needs to do now is to begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal plants. Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they’re having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.

The new rules will be aimed at new gas-fired power plants but mostly at coal power plants, being the form of energy generation that emits most CO2.

Some say that the rules will kill the future of coal and raise electricity costs.

In Britain, skyrocketing utility bills and “fuel poverty” are already a reality. "Fuel poverty" is a new condition, in which energy bills expenditure makes up 10% or more of the household's net income. One in four British households is suffering from it. Some people have to choose to eat less in order to keep warm.

The exceptionally high gas and electricity bills are due to the fact that householders are obliged to subsidize ineffective “renewables”, like the totally useless wind farms which are now blotting the country’s landscape and seascape against the fierce but crushed opposition of the local residents.

The Renewable Obligations Order system, introduced by Tony Blair’s Labour government in 2002, forces companies supplying electricity to buy a proportion of their electricity from non-fossil sources. Since these are highly ineffective, the energy companies have to pay inflated prices, which they pass on to their unfortunate customers through their electricity bills.

In March 2003 the Blair government published an Energy White Paper. In its Section 4.7 it says explicitly:

We have introduced a Renewables Obligation for England and Wales in April 2002. This will incentivise generators to supply progressively higher levels of renewable energy over time. The cost is met through higher prices to consumers. By 2010, it is estimated that this support and Climate Change Levy (CCL) exemption will be worth around £1 billion a year to the UK renewables industry. [Emphases added]

It also estimated that meeting the CO2 reduction targets would increase household energy bills by up to 15%.

With the Climate Change Act 2008 the UK government, by its own description, "passed legislation that introduces the world's first long-term legally binding framework to tackle the dangers of climate change."

It is an unprecedented piece of legislation, which The Telegraph journalist Christopher Booker, author of books on the global warming scare, described as:

by far the most expensive law in history, which commits Britain, uniquely in the world, to reducing its CO2 emissions by 80 per cent in 40 years. By the Government's own estimates, this will cost up to £18 billion a year. Any hope that we could begin to meet such a target without closing down most of our economy is as fanciful as the idea that we can meet our EU commitment to generate 30 per cent of our electricity by 2020 from 'renewable' sources, such as wind and solar.

Many want that law scrapped. The UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change has taken much more seriously the second part of its name than the first, and now the country is facing the consequences with the first blackouts of possibly a long series, while fracking is hysterically opposed by environmentalists who with their celebrity-filled protests managed to stop it in some locations.

This is the paradox of the AGW theory of man-made climate change. Not only UK pensioners are suffering and dying from some of the coldest winters on record – which refutes the theory, since temperatures haven’t increased with the risen levels of CO2 in the last 15 years, as the computer models based on the theory predicted -, but also they may not be helped by an efficient energy system, providing the heating that could save their lives, because of policies dictated by the very same theory.

For years energy experts have warned of an impending energy shortage crisis in the UK, due to the closure of many coal-based and gas-fired power plants while new ones have not been built, and the reliance on an astronomical number of newly-built wind farms to generate the necessary energy has proven a huge mistake.

The IPPC, the United Nations body responsible for research and policy recommendations on climate change, is a confused mixture of science and politics.

The IPPC comprises scientists and government officials, some of whom are scientists and some are not. There are two main types of IPCC documents: the reports written by scientists and the Summaries for Policy Makers which officials write on the basis of the scientists’ reports often in greatly altered and misrepresented form.

The Summaries for Policy Makers are usually the only IPCC documents that journalists and governments see. Repeatedly the scientists who wrote the original scientific essays have complained that their views had been misunderstood and inaccurately reported in the documents for policy makers, invariably to make them appear more strongly in favour of the received AGW theory wisdom than they actually were.

Even allowing for the remote possibility that there were some truth in that theory, whatever the reality about climate change, the policies of both the UK and the USA are nothing short of insane.

With China and India, the world’ most populous, fast-developing (and polluting) countries with 40% of the planet's human inhabitants between them, never subscribing to AGW theory - mainly supported by Western nations - and never accepting even the minimum restriction to their CO2 emissions because this would have hampered their economic growth, Britain’s and America’s attempt to cut down CO2 will only serve to damage their economies without helping the environment in any way, shape or form.

Saturday, 12 October 2013

If we think of the gigantic progress made by the "gay liberation" movement in just a few decades or even years, we are astonished.

The idea of homomarriage would have been unthinkable 20-30 years ago when homosexuals themselves were declaring their opposition to this institution, and even 5 years ago it would have been difficult for it to become part of the UK law.

It has required a social re-education programme of vast proportions, a cultural war for general sexual freedom, of which homosexual "liberation" is part.

One method of crucial importance and psychological effectiveness employed by the homosexual movement and by the Left in general, of which proponents of "gay rights" talk openly, has been the use of desensitisation.

This technical term derives from the learning theory, a psychological theory descended from behaviourism.

The technique of systematic desensitisation is popularly and commonly used in behaviour psychotherapy. It consists in exposing the patient to something - an object, situation, person, animal - to which he has a sensitivity considered excessive, abnormal, pathological or harmful, as in the case of a phobia, until it gradually decreases and hopefully disappears.

The point is that desensitisation is useful and advisable if you have, for example, a phobia of cats. If you have a fear of tigers, getting desensitised may be a very bad idea.

Clearly, for people who believe in the existence of "homophobia" - an irrational fear of homosexuals comparable to fears of harmless spiders, the number 13, lifts or mice -, the folks who suffer from it are badly in need of treatment, and desensitisation is the method they've been employing through prolonged exposure to TV, press, celebrity behaviour and public discourse in which homosexuality is presented, in words and images, as "the new norm", or just another lifestyle.

It's natural, animals are homosexuals too, they say. In addition, anything negative said about homosexuality is treated as morally equivalent to discrimination on the basis of race, which these days is a crime worse than murder. This not only reinforces desensitisation to homosexuality but also creates a new sensitisation, a new fear in its place (this time real), that of being considered as a socio-political pariah for thinking - and even feeling - in the wrong way.

Any feeling of aversion or repulsion for homosexual behaviour - even if not extended to homosexual individuals - is to be ferociously repressed and suppressed, by order of the "liberators". If that sentence sounds like a contradiction in terms, it's because it is.

You don't "free" people by making them afraid of you and by imposing on them your views through that fear.

As homosexual celebrity Graham Norton commented in reference to what was happening on the stage during the Eurovision Song Contest held in Malmö in May 2013, "if two girls kissing offends you, you need to grow up". Feelings of offence are not acceptable to the thought police.

To desensitise the public even more, later on two male dancers kissed in the final choreography during the voting process. It's exactly the correct procedure of graduality: first you expose the subject to a milder shock, then to a slighly stronger one.

And any opportunity is good for the cause of "gay liberation", as long as it has a wide audience.

The theory, if we can call it that way, behind this vast programme of brainwashing - vaguely reminiscent of the film A Clockwork Orange, but on a much bigger scale -, which its supporters probably would consider education or rehabilitation, is that only positive feelings towards sexuality are natural.

It probably has a Freudian derivation, since the father of psychoanalysis has had an enormous influence on the way we think and, along with Marx, has been the greatest destroyer of all that is good about Western civilisation.

Sigmund Freud believed that society is a necessary evil, in that the individual's natural urges must be sacrificed for it, which gives rise to neuroses and psychoses.

He inspired the idea that, if we were left to our natural sentiments and impulses, we would only feel attraction for everything that is sexual. Repulsion, shame, disgust only come from society's repressive influence.

But what if it were not like this? What if our natural feelings towards sex were mixed, both of attraction and repulsion?

I'll explore this in more detail in another article, but there are signs that it could be this way. After all, many mammalian species' females go through periods of oestrus or heat, so sexual attraction is limited to those times. In other animals, who don't live in a restrictive society, it's not a sexual free-for-all.

Each species has its normal behaviour, anyway, which may be greatly different from what is the norm in another species, so this is not conclusive. But we can see that in humans too. There is, for example, an innate aversion to sex with kin individuals in humans as well as other animals.

So, sex can provoke natural strong feelings in both directions. Since homosexual activists and their supporters, hard as they tried, have not managed to produce credible theories that homosexuality is "natural" or non-pathological, but on the contrary there are good reasons, which I've examined elsewhere in the articles linked to below, to believe that it is neither, the feelings of aversion to homosexual acts that they try to suppress in us may just be an innate and totally healthy reaction, similar to that towards brother-sister sex. In which case this indoctrination is a harmful manipulation - in addition to an illiberal attack on personal freedom - that we must fight against tooth and nail.

Friday, 11 October 2013

In what is one of the worst immigrant tragedies in the Mediterranean in recent years, a boat full of immigrants sank off the coast of the Italian island of Lampedusa, causing over 300 victims at the last count.

The response to the accident is what divides Italy and public opinion worldwide. While the Minister for Integration, Congolese Kyenge Cecile, has used this tragic opportunity to reiterate her call for the abolition of the crime of illegal entry and illegal residence, the Northern League has requested her resignation and wants the boats to be turned back because they are full of illegal immigrants.

Indeed, the best way to prevent tragedies such as this is to discourage the crossings by deterring the would-be migrants, and the best way to achieve that is to turn the boats back.

Italy's immigration law requires repatriation of illegal immigrants and has allegedly sometimes led to the sequester of fishing boats that have saved the lives of migrants. There have been accusations that, in the latest disaster, nearby local fishing boats had seen that the vessel was in trouble but had not come to its rescue.

Italy has pressed the European Union for more help to fight the crisis, saying that “Lampedusa has to be considered the frontier of Europe, not the frontier of Italy.” The EU's Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmstroemn called on EU countries to do more to take in refugees, which she said would help reduce the number of perilous Mediterranean crossings.

There is talk of having EU boats patrol the area. The point is: should they help immigrants to get to Lampedusa or to go back?

Read previous posts on Lampedusa to get a background of the situation:

Thursday, 10 October 2013

Britain is reaping the fruits of its multi-decennial multicultural policy and of what is euphemistically called “tolerance” - and realistically “bending over backwards” - to Islam.

If anyone doubts that Muhammadanism is a supremacist doctrine, this doubting Thomas should take a look at what’s happening in an English school currently in the news.

Britain's first Muslim “free school” (namely, government funded but outside local authority control), Al-Madinah School in the city of Derby, underwent a two-day (October 1-2) inspection by officials of the government’s education regulator Ofsted. The school has been shut during and after the inspection by its Principal allegedly “owing to a health and safety issue”.

A strong Muslim ethos will give the school its uniqueness... At the centre of our school is a community of pupils, able to enjoy learning in a caring Islamic environment.

The school is said to be controlled by Islamic hardliners who ban children from playing stringed instruments - forbidden by Islam -, singing except Islamic faith songs, and reading fairy tales as these are 'non-Islamic'.

The school’s former head Andrew Cutts-McKay and former deputy Suzanne Southerland claim they were 'bullied, sidelined' and forced to leave by members of the school's trust, which is predominantly Muslim.

Al-Madinah, established in September 2012, denies it. But only days before those claims, female teachers had alleged that they were told to sign new contracts forcing them to wear the hijab – covering head and neck - and forbidding jewellery, regardless of their religion. They had expressed concern about other practices, like banning non-halal food and forcing female pupils – even 4-year-olds - to sit at the back of the class away from boys.

Even devout Christian teachers were compelled to wear Islamic garb, and in the end quit the school.

One woman claimed she was told not to shake hands with male teachers to avoid “insult”, while another said that girls are allowed to have lunch only after boys have finished eating: “It is like being in any school in Pakistan. That is why it was founded, that is the idea”, she added.

An employee told The Sunday Times newspaper: “When teaching children the alphabet, you could not associate the letter 'p' with pig.”

About half a dozen teachers, who risk their jobs if they don’t comply with the rules, are seeking legal advice from the National Union of Teachers, which commented: “It’s one thing to have a dress code which we can challenge and quite another to build it into a contract.”

The Union’s Sue Arguile explained: “We have always had a number of concerns about this school ever since it was first set up, as essentially they can do what they like.”

The problem with Al-Madinah is its “free school” status which means that, although it received £1.4 million from the government and is expecting more, it sets its own rules, curriculums, dress codes, teachers' pay and conditions. In short, a lose-lose situation for the taxpayers, obliged to sign a blank check to the Islamization of their country.

“But”, Arguile points out, “forcing people to agree to contractual changes or face being out of work could breach employment law.”

The Derby school was already under investigation, the Department for Education revealed, before the allegations against it became public, followed by an immediate inspection. “We are waiting for Ofsted's final report and considering all legal options” a spokesman said.

Al-Madinah is not the only case. Another state-backed school, this time in in Blackburn, has imposed strict rules under which pupils must “wear the hijab outside the school and at home, recite the Koran at least once a week” and not have stationery with “unIslamic images”, like pictures of pop stars.

And it was discovered that many Islamic schools in Britain force girls as young as 11 to wear burqas - covering the whole body and face, sometimes with a mesh screen to see through - as the “desired dress code of a Muslim female”, while many others - including about a dozen state-funded schools - demand that female pupils cover their hair.

Prime Minister David Cameron said the government should back institutions on banning face-covering veils, as in this BBC interview:

We are a free country and people should be free to wear whatever clothes they like in public or in private.

But we should support those institutions that need to put in place rules so that those institutions can work properly.

So for instance in a school, if they want that particular dress code, I believe the Government should back them. The same for courts, the same for immigration.

Obviously, in court the jury needs to be able to look at someone's face. I've sat on a jury, that's part of what you do.

When someone is coming into the country, an immigration officer needs to see someone's face.

In a school, it's very difficult to teach unless you can look at your pupils in the eye.

Cameron was referring to the recent case of a London judge who ordered a Muslim defendant and witness to remove the niqab - covering all the face except the eyes - throughout her evidence, while allowing her to wear it during the rest of the trial. He ruled that it’s crucial for jurors to see a witness's face so they can assess her demeanour and expression in order to establish credibility, that some restrictions to Muslim garb are necessary, and that no tradition or practice is above the law.

He ended with a pun, “The niqab has become the elephant in the courtroom”, and called for Parliament or a higher court to provide a definitive statement on it.

Similar public unease has been manifested concerning hospital nurses’ wearing headscarves and veils.

It’s clear that a certain discontent with Islamic dress is growing in Europe. France in 2011 banned Muslim as well as non-Muslim face-covering clothing because it prevents the identification of a person, on the grounds of both security and social communication.

Ban opponents claim it breaches individual freedoms. It does, and so does having a number plate on your vehicle, so if you want to use your car for a get-away after a bank robbery you can’t. That’s a limitation on personal freedom we all must accept in order to live in a civilized society.

The French concern is totally justified. In June this year six men in burqas raided London's Selfridges department store, smashing glass cabinets and stealing high-value watches.

The same ban was attempted in Britain in 2010 with Conservative MP Philip Hollobone’s bill, unsuccessful due to claims that it would breach the Equality Act.

It will be a difficult battle, with two steps forward and one step back. In France the ban has caused riots and violence. Back in Britain, the city of Birmingham’s Metropolitan College, which had for some time had a policy forcing students to remove veils, hoodies and hats while on its premises to be identifiable for security reasons, was made to retract it in September by a planned mass demonstration against “'Islamophobia” and an online petition signed by 9,000. A prospective student started the row by complaining to her local paper that she was being discriminated against.

While the debate over female Muslim attire has in recent weeks dominated UK headlines, a student in South London’s Bromley College, asked to remove her cap for identification and security reasons, refused to do so unless Muslim women removed their headdresses too, rightly complaining of double standards.

When defending their presumed “right” to act like Muslims, the followers of Muhammad sometimes let their guard down and reveal something about themselves.

Britain’s Home Office Minister Jeremy Browne, pointing out that the government should consider an Islamic dress ban, did something that you don’t see often. Very timidly, he hinted at reciprocity, a thorny issue for Muslim sensitivities, by saying:

That would apply to Christian minorities in the Middle East just as much as religious minorities here in Britain.

The chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation Mohammed Shafiq responded that he was "disgusted" by Browne's comments.

What disgusted him? The proposed, very mild exception to the kid-glove treatment that Muslims receive over here or the slight indication that Christians should not be massacred over there?

Tuesday, 8 October 2013

A bunch of non-British pontificating on what the core values of Britain are or should be. We have here, on a BBC programme, one of the endless series of debates on "what is Britishness" that have been part of the UK public discourse only since the arrival on these shores of vast numbers of people belonging to the ethnic, religious and geographic groups represented by most debaters in this video.

Can you imagine 60, 100, 200 years ago people having discussions on what Britishness was? Everybody knew what it was until mass, uncontrolled immigration from the Third World started and never stopped.

I found this comment to the video on YouTube spot on: "all because you non-whites have a British accent it doesn't﻿ make u British".

That being born and bred in this country does not provide a national identity or guarantee national loyalty, as is too often wrongly accepted, is demonstrated by an Asian man in this discussion. He openly declares that he was born and educated in Britain but nevertheless his sense of identity is precisely not having that identity, indeed he goes as far as saying that Britishness means not having an identity.

He was also very good at tying himself in (il)logical knots when he told a Hindu woman that her way of thinking was "unBritish". How can you define what is unBritish if you haven't defined "British", since in his opinion that word is tantamount to nothing?

It's disingenuous of "Professor of Poetry" Benjamin Zephaniah to say that multiculturalism has been part of Britain since the time of the ancient Celts, Picts and Romans, although that claim is a staple of the usual pro-multi-culti argument.

What he's referring to was not multiculturalism. That was war of different peoples against each other. The Celts were in Britain first, then they were conquered by the Romans. After the Romans eventually left, the Celts fought against the Angles and the Saxons, and finally retreated to Wales, Scotland and Cornwall. Then it was the turn of the Vikings to war with the Anglo-Saxons, and after them the Normans invaded and dominated England.

It was violence and invasion, and it was bloody.

Make no mistake. Current immigration levels and the imposition of multiculturalism are entirely new historical phenomena without any precedent not ony in the history of Britain but also of Europe.

It is an experiment carried out on the skin of the indigenous populations. Like all experiments, it can very badly go wrong, and there are numerous signs everywhere that it is.

And, as the TV debate in the video above truthfully represents, the natives are marginalised voices in this experiment and the decisions made about it, while the ethnic (for now) minorities have a much greater weight.

This video shows the new reality of the country: invasion and colonisation.

Around the world, we have situations and events that as a whole resemble an “ocean” of crooked laws, injustices, oppression, greed, lies, killings, and all sorts of evils that man is capable of perpetrating on his fellow men. Some of these events are violent and shocking attacks on innocent people, like the 9/11 terrorist attack, the Beslan school hostage crisis, the Boston Marathon bombing, Kenya’s Westgate Mall terror attack, and other terrorist attacks in London, Spain, India, etc. Yet, other attacks come slowly and methodically, like creeping shariah, imposition of the will of minority immigrants over the will and way of life of the host country, footbaths, halal meat, burning the flag of the host country, protesting in the streets and displaying signs like “Europe, Your 9/11 is Coming”, and “Behead Those Who Insult islam”!!

Westerners, born and raised in a democratic society, enjoy freedom of speech, and are brought up to respect and tolerate other people’s views, opinions and religions. Muslims, on the other hand, live by teachings given to them in their Quran and reinforced by their upbringing. They are taught to hate anyone who does not believe in their god, period! Calling everyone else (Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and so on) infidels, kafirs, non-believers, pigs, apes, and unclean.

While Muslims are accusing everyone else of being unclean, immoral, or just being your basic unbeliever, they are busy praying five times a day, in public, for all to see! They demand footbaths in universities and airports. How does washing one’s feet before prayer cleanse the heart, or make one more worthy of praying to his or her god? I would rather have dirty feet, but pray to God to help me love my neighbor and not kill him if he doesn’t believe what I believe!

If you think that I am a racist, or a bigot, or that the things I mentioned above are not dangerous to Western society, then do all of us and yourself a favor, and read about what happened to the Hindus in India, the Zoroastrians in pre-Iran Persia, the Armenian Christians, and the Christians and Jews in Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Sudan, etc.

Liberals tell the rest of us that we are intolerant and hateful when we comment on the creeping danger that Islam poses, a danger that is by no means fabricated by us “racists and bigots”, but even broadcast by Muslims and their clerics themselves for the whole world to hear and read in sermons, lectures, writings and street protests! Liberals push the notion that most Muslims are moderate and pose no danger at all to our Western way of life and our belief system. To the contrary, it is a well-established fact that when Muslims are a small minority in a foreign country, they are “peaceful and moderate”. Once their numbers increase, then their demands go up, their voices get louder, and the host country is all of a sudden embroiled in more protests, increased numbers of crimes like rape and murder, and the occasional riots, car burnings and vandalism! Remember what happened in France in 2005? Look it up!

Most people are busy being good citizens, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters, and overall productive members of society. They are caught up in the struggles of earning money to raise a family, save for retirement, a little vacation now and then, maybe even save for some extra luxuries, or to start a small business.

That’s why most Westerners are not out in the streets protesting or demanding things. They not only work for a living, but also try to build a future for themselves and their children. Another thing they do is vote! They vote for politicians who they hope would represent them and act on their behalf to ensure basic conditions like:

1. Safety, both from national threats and local crime.
2. Freedom. To be left alone to live, worship, and be happy, provided they don’t encroach on the freedoms of others.

Unfortunately, many politicians in the West (both left and right, with the exception of very few), would not stand a chance to be voted into office by law-abiding, hard-working, God-fearing citizens, so what do they do in order to ensure a cushy job and a secure retirement for themselves? They divide society into groups and promise them special handouts if they help elect them. Therefore, it is in the politicians’ best interest (not the country’s) to cultivate groups of voting blocs made up of people who are dependent on government handouts. Such handouts can only come from the ever-rising taxes on hard-working citizens, knowing full well that these citizens would not leave their daily jobs and take to the streets in protest! But, after the politicians ran out of voting blocs to cultivate large enough majorities, they started encouraging whole-sale, open-door immigration from all parts of the world. When people come to the West not able to speak the native language of the host country, they naturally find it difficult to blend in, find jobs, and become productive members of society! Never fear, for here come the politicians with their promises of welfare, free housing, food stamps, free tuition, and even social-security benefits (in the US) for people who had not put a penny into the system.

What I’ve outlined above are old tactics (for over 100 years) used by politicians, especially liberals, who couldn’t win elections fair and square and on merit! The only difference, and the bigger danger in the present, is that Muslims migrating to the West not only benefit financially as outlined above, but find out very quickly that they can use our democracy, freedom of speech, and tolerance of other religions against us in order to fulfill their Quran’s Hijra (immigration) jihad of slowly taking over other cultures. (Again, don’t just take my word for this, do some research on the violence of Islam from its inception. This is not a new problem!) As their numbers increase, and more importantly because they refuse to assimilate into our culture and accept our laws, Muslims drive many of the host-country’s citizens out of a town and form their own separatist enclaves that even the police dare not enter!

Keep in mind that tolerance of other religions is almost non-existent in many countries in the Middle East. So while Europe and the USA are brimming with more and more mosques, there isn’t a single Christian Church in Saudi Arabia and those that exist in Egypt, Syria, or Iraq, to name a few countries, are constantly being attacked, vandalized, or burned to the ground. When was the last time you heard or read of Christians attacking a mosque, climbing on its walls and destroying religious relics? If that ever happened, the whole Christian community would be torched and many killed. You don’t think that would happen? Well it happened in Pakistan after a Christian was accused of blasphemy against Islam! Look it up, it happened around March 9th, 2013.

I am not advocating hatred or intolerance of anyone who genuinely comes to our Western countries seeking freedom from brutal regimes, depressed economies (although they have all the money in the world from oil, it seems that only the ruling class gets to enjoy those riches), and brutality of rape, murder, stoning, “honor” killings, etc., etc. All I ask is that when you come here, you don’t turn around and spit in our faces and tell us that we are infidels, and that you want to overturn our democratic system to replace it by the very system (shariah or Islamic law) that is brutalizing so many back in your country!!

Saturday, 5 October 2013

This is the second part of a 3-part article by our new guest writer, Stephen St. George, a Catholic born in Iraq who now lives in the United States. The first part, in which he describes his early experiences in Iraq, is here: Let’s Throw Pebbles in the Ocean!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I’ve heard and seen many attacks directed at anyone who speaks the truth about the atrocities that Muslims are perpetrating upon innocent people all around the world. These are some of the attacks, untruths, insults and propaganda spewed by Muslims or their liberal defenders, and my answers to them.

Accusation: “If you speak against Islam, you are a racist and a bigot!”Answer: This is a common liberal (and Muslim) strategy. Calling someone a name is an attempt to derail the debate and change the subject. Anyone who is trying to discuss the facts of violence, terrorism, beheadings, rape, etc., is taken off topic and put on the defensive. Besides, as you may have already heard, Islam is not a race, so I am not a racist for speaking against the violence carried out around the world in the name of Islam! As a matter of fact, if Muslims did not, with their own words and actions, threaten my way of life or my family’s safety, I would be the first to welcome them in my neighborhood and country.

Argument: “The West and the US caused or is constantly causing Islamic terrorism because we bomb them and try to steal their oil!”Answer: The West and the United States did not exist 1400 years ago, yet Islam was invading many of the Arab countries, murdering and converting people to Islam under threat of death! Then they turned around, killed thousands of Christans who were visiting the Holy Land, and when warriors went to the Middle East to defend the Christians, we are constantly told that the defenders were the aggressors, but the first offenders were the victims! What made Muslims attack, slaughter, enslave, and take over villages, cities, etc. before they were ever “mistreated” by the “evil” West? This argument does not hold any water, the Muslims and their liberal defenders know it, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Then again, I am asking people who have no shame to be ashamed of themselves!!

Now, regarding the “stealing-of-the-oil” argument. If we were stealing oil, why are we paying close to $4, $5, or even higher in Europe? Shouldn’t we be paying something like 50¢ if that were true?

Argument: “Muslims and especially Palestinians act out because they are poor and have no hope in life, Israel is oppressing them and constantly destroying their homes and killing their children.”Answer: Many Christians live in abject poverty all around the Middle East, but their faith in God and His mercy prevents them from acting violently against Muslims. Although Christians are being oppressed by Islam, how many news reports of Christian terrorism have you read coming out of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, etc.? Close to . . . none?

What about Israel bombing Palestinian villages? How would you like it if your neighborhood was constantly bombed day-in and day-out, to the tune of 2,256 rockets from January through November 2012? Since when is self-defense more criminal than the original attack or attacks?

And don’t even get me started on the Jewish and Christian origins in the area of “Palestine” since the Old Testament and through the New Testament! Why do you think Mohammed’s Quran demonizes Jews and Christians? It is so our holy books are struck down and true history of God’s people is erased and replaced by Mohammedanism!!

Argument: This argument is even thrown around by Westerners who are clueless, uninformed mental midgets, and by atheists who hate all religions carte blanche and so it goes something like: “All religions, including Christianity, are or were violent!”Answer: Just open your eyes and read! Have an open mind and visit The Religion of Peace (just one of the hundreds of websites around the world writing about the problem of Islam). Spend some time (more than 5 minutes) to read about all the attacks carried out by Muslims JUST since 9/11/2001. Go into the archives, scroll up and down and read the articles!! If you are kept blind by the liberal media outlets that you constantly rely on for your news, do yourself, your kids, family, and your country a favor and read, really read some of these articles!! Do more research and let us know how the terrorism carried out by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jews, and Christians compares to Islamic terrorism. I’ll even give you that, if one or two rogue soldiers have killed innocent Muslims, I consider that evil and an act or acts that were not sanctioned by their military leaders, whereas I have read of so many Islamic clerics condoning mass murders of non-Muslims - as in the latest mall and school massacres in Kenya. Read about the reports, watch the videos of Muslim clerics inciting violence against all non-Muslims!!

Be honest with at least yourself and your conscience, so if you are uninformed about the violent origins of Islam or what Islam has done in the West in the Middle Ages, how Muslims slaughtered the Armenians, Spaniards, Hindus, Zoroastrians in pre-Iran Persia, and how they are slaughtering the Christians in Egypt, the rest of Africa, and Syria today, then please shut the hell up, and don’t put our lives in danger due to your ignorance!!

I do pray that Muslims save their souls by turning to the true God and Jesus Christ His son who came to Earth to teach us how to live in peace and defeat sin. Jesus did not tell us to kill anyone who did not believe in Him! He told us that we must love our neighbor as we love ourselves!

This is my pebble in the water, let me see how far you can throw yours, spread the word and let’s make the truth known!

What would I like you to do to save our civilization, our freedom, our tolerant way of life?

1. Get informed and stay informed. Do not depend on the liberal (treasonous) media that pushes the liberal and socialist agenda.
2. Inform as many friends and family members as possible by kindly pointing them to the truth.
3. Vote! The number-one reason we have an Obama in the White House, and socialists in all branches of government both in the US and Europe, is because good people either don’t bother to vote or are uninformed about how to vote for the right people who would preserve our democracies. I attribute much of this to their being misled by the liberal, socialist media!

Friday, 4 October 2013

This is the first part of a 3-part article by our guest writer Stephen St. George, a Catholic born in Iraq who now lives in the United States, and who knows through direct experience what it means to be a Christian in a Muslim-majority country. Here he describes his early experiences in Iraq.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If I throw a small pebble into a huge body of water like an ocean, it will make small waves that have almost no effect and fade away in no time at all. Surely, if a thousand people were to each throw a pebble at the same time, the effect would be much bigger waves that would last longer.

By writing this article, I am throwing a single “pebble” in this violent, troubled “ocean” that is our present world. I hope you would join me and throw at least one pebble of truth, so that we may make a noticeable difference.

I was born in Baghdad, Iraq. I am one of seven siblings. Life was difficult, as my dad was the only breadwinner and we lived at the edge between being poor and being less poor than some of our neighbors. In a large family like mine, especially if you are the oldest, you grow “older” faster. I had my share of chores in the small apartment(s) we lived in most of my teenage years, and I was the only one (at least that’s what I thought) who knew of the financial difficulties my parents were going through. As a result, through my early years, I developed a consciousness of my surroundings that a young person might not be aware of amid the joys of being young and innocent.

I was only about four as I remember sitting on my dad’s shoulders among the thousands of spectators as the young king Faisal was being paraded in the streets of Baghdad in a golden carriage. Then later in 1958, I remember the news on the radio of the uprising and military coup that resulted in the murder of the king and his family. I distinctly remember the brutal ways in which some of those people were killed. The king’s uncle was tortured by being forced to sit on an oven with the burners on! Another relative of the king was dragged in the streets by a car or motorcycle then hung from a tree. I was seven years old then, and these events boggled my mind. How could people treat other people with such savagery? I could not find any answers, not even from any adult family member or school teacher. No one talked about these atrocities, and you were not supposed to ask any questions!

One day in 1963, I remember being at the dentist’s office with my mom, when all of a sudden we heard the thunderous mob outside running and shouting. Later, we discovered that Abd Al-Karim Qasim, the new prime minister who was part of the military coup that murdered the members of the royal family in 1958, was himself tortured and killed. Mind you, this was not an ordinary assassination, no sir! I heard on the news the details of his torture and how he was seated on a chair and spat on and beaten even after he was dead! These acts are usually carried out in the Arab world to strike fear in the population in order to quell any resistance!

Afterwards, I remember that during many walks back from school while passing by one of Qasim's former palaces, I would see his armored vehicle displayed inside the palace gates with what seemed like hundreds of bullet dents. Again this form of public intimidation was meant to scare anyone who even entertained any thoughts of dissent.

Iraq was now under the control of the Ba’ath Party, Saddam Hussein’s party.

Abdul Salam Arif was Iraq’s second president, but he died in what was then reported as a helicopter crash in 1966. All I remember from that time was what people were saying: “He went up as flesh, and came down as ashes”. This could have been another assassination/accident.

Arabs are not in favor or not even allowed to vote for their next president! The way parties come to power is through violence or intimidation!

My nightmare as a young man growing up in such a savage environment continued with memories of watching Muslims in the streets beat themselves and their young boys with chains and swords and the blood running down their faces and backs. Do an Internet search of "Muslim Ashura or Ashoura"!

I learned early on that as a Roman Catholic and a Christian, I was living in Iraq as a second-class citizen. I had no right to question anything, no right to express my opinion, unless I wanted to be shouted at, spat on, or beaten by Muslims. They don’t debate issues. They threaten you! The only truth they know is what has been burned into their brains from the Quran or the teachings from the life of Mohammed!

Talking about the lack of freedom and privacy in the Middle East, I remember the letters I received from a penpal from the USA (a girl in Pennsylvania) being opened and of course read prior to delivery. I also remember hiding from the police while walking home from school for fear of having my “long” hair shaved because of a law that forbade teenage boys from having their hair come down over their forehead! Girls, at the same time, were being stopped in the street, and if their skirt was a little above the knees, it would be ripped and their legs would be painted.

They stopped this nonsense when a minister’s daughter had that done to her! That’s how justice is served in the Middle East, not because it’s right, but because in cases like this one, it got too close for comfort to the ruling class!

Then when I was a sophomore in high school, on an early morning, the school bus was late picking me up and a few of the students who were waiting with me. We decided to walk towards Baghdad’s Liberation Square hoping to meet the bus on its way to us. I will never forget the awful sight of 14 men who were hung around the perimeter of the square. These people were found guilty of spying, “tried” the night before and used as another spectacle and warning to anyone contemplating going against the Ba’ath party in Iraq.

In the early part of the 1970s, I left everything behind and traveled to Beirut, Lebanon to seek asylum in the United States of America. I became a US citizen about 32 years ago and I’ve lived in the US for close to forty years now. I’ve seen Muslims who come to live in America, but constantly spit on it, burn its flag, and then demand respect!!??

I watch as Muslims burn Churches and murder Christians in Egypt, Syria, Sudan, Kenya, and even in the West. They rape non-Muslim girls because, according to them, they don’t dress properly! Tell me, what’s a bigger offense in God’s eyes, someone who dresses provocatively, or someone who rapes or kills innocents?

From my own experience living in Iraq and Lebanon, I know that Muslims are raised and taught to hate anyone who does not believe in their Allah (not the God of Abraham and Moses)!!

But what I cannot ever understand is why some misguided souls in the West (mostly liberals) make excuses and defend what Muslims do???? Have these people lived in the “paradise” that is the Middle East for even one day? Have they seen the Muslim-on-Muslim (different Islamic sects) violence and Muslim-on-non-Muslim violence? The answer of course is an emphatic NO!!

How can a Westerner who grew up in a free country appease or even support or speak positively of Islam or Muslims actions? My take on this is, if that person is an average Joe, and he is uninformed (a topic for another article regarding the role the treasonous media is playing in misleading the general public), I sure hope he/she opens his/her eyes, ears, and mind and SEE and HEAR what’s going on around him/her. On the other hand, if we are talking about politicians, and they are appeasing Islam for the sake of gaining traction with this voting bloc, getting elected and having a cushy government job with endless benefits for life, then they are treasonous people who are selling out their country and countrymen for their own immediate gains!

Tuesday, 1 October 2013

Then you can join the first regional group formed for the UK's newest and most honest political party, Liberty GB. We stand for Christian civilisation, Western values, animal welfare, against Islam and political correctness.

Aaron Brian, of Stoke-on-Trent in Staffordshire, is Liberty GB's first local organiser.

You can become a local organiser too, for the West Midlands or any other UK region.

Subscribe Now: Feed Icon

About Me

Philosophy graduate, journalist, website creator and
blogger born in Italy and living in London. I have been London correspondent for Italian media, including Panorama, L'Espresso, La
Repubblica. I translated Peter Singer's book Animal Liberation into Italian.